conclusion of a project that we're verifying that the dollars have actually been awarded. the report that you have currently are awarded data. we are making efforts to track payment data currently with elations and other types of shows we're looking at. >> that was the only other question i had immediately is what is our technology? because some of the reports, this one in particular from local hiring policy for construction, i was shocked at how in depth it was. very data driven by ethnicity, by the departments. it sounds like they use elations. >> that's correct, yes. >> but this is of course on if labor side, but on the business side, does elations have that technology that allows us to track payments. >> elations does have the payment side to it as well. currently ocii does not subscribe to that interface, but what george and i are

looking at are al tern tiffs to that as well that would be even more effective. having payment data as an example when a project is completed and verifying with sub contractors is an area we're looking at. >> just for that, the use of elations system, it was actually the former redevelopment agency i believe that pioneered that and the city followed suit and added additional bells and whistles. >> great. i have others, but go ahead. >> commissioner ellington. >> i thank you for the presentation and the -- i thought the informational memo was very well put together. finally appreciative to have

the good faith term clearly defined and see the different steps laid out as to what that looks like for developers and so forth. i guess my question is, wbe, mbe are those subsets of sbe numbers or are those reported differently? >> you're referring to the -- >> general. yeah. >> they're part of the sbe. they're subset of the sbes. >> okay. >> it's the same dollar threshold so the former agency and even the city had a program in diversity that was based on mbe and wbe post prop 209 it's been inclusive of mbe and wee and the city followed suit with their 14b. >> i was confused on that, but

thanks for the clarification. the second question i had was i read something in the memo about qualifying for sbe and the agency is no longer doing that. can you talk about that? >> there used to be a certification staff that certifies small businesses and prior to that women and minority businesses because of staff reduction, what is currently practiced now because of terms that have been certified by other governmental entities. when you go through a verification process to ensure the threshold is still met. i'll give you an example. the state of california department of general services does certify small businesses for state purposes. we would use that directory when necessary if a firm was certified by dgs, but what we'd do in that instance is verify that the gross revenues for the prior three years still met our

threshold and it's critical within the professional services field because our threshold is much lower at 2 million, for construction i believe is also 14 million by the state. so we don't go through certification per se, but we won't make verification if a firm has been certified by another governmental entity. >> are there any other local governmental entities that provide that certification? >> the content monitoring division certifies local business enterprises so for san francisco it would be cmd. for alameda county as an example, they have a joint certification program that is shared with the city and the public works so we would use that if a firm was certified through that entity. again, we would accept it as long as it meets our revenue threshold. >> what's the relationship

between a cmd type organization that certifies our our agency? is it a direct line? >> it's part of the city. the city's contract monitoring division that oversees their implementation of the admin code 14b. we certainly, from a point of view leverage their resources. it's twofold, the reason why we have now adopted other certifications as currently submitted in our sbe policy. it was staff reduction as a result of dissolution, but it was part of bureaucracy and permit streamlining as they're seeking to do business with the city. it is a process producing tax returns, filling out the same documents and paperwork. it made a lot of sense to rely on the city certification, but as mr. lee indicated the dollar

threshold, making sure at local cmd, state, the dollar thresholds comport with our 2 million gross receipts for three years and 14 million on the construction side. >> what's kinds of the rational behind expanding from 2 to 2.5? it >> it makes it easier for communication purposes and developers, we can say we'd accept the city's lbe program ad hoc without having to say we only accept it for construction, but at professional services it cuts off at 2 million. when you look at the directory you can't rely solely on the directory itself, you have to take an extra level of anal ses. it's for ease of communication, the 500,000 difference.

i guess we'll have to talk with the community to see what their thoughts are, but it may seem relatively small, negligible in that respect, that 500 difference, but it would make certainly communication with the developers easier, it would make staff resources more efficient because we won't have to also make that same analysis or go through that extra level of analysis. >> yeah. i like the idea of the one stop shop idea where if someone is certified for the san francisco based business that it's essentially an automatic certification that can be relied on because just in the conversation -- and we -- from my vantage point we have developers doing different level of effort. strata is a perfect example, they'll be the poster child from now on in my book, that why is it they can do so well as compared to others. either it's because, you know, jessie and michael are former

san francisco employees and they get it or they know more people or whatever the story is, but it's just to make it easier for everyone to comply we should have some uniformity it seems to me in our certification standards. >> yeah, that's what i was getting at is how do we streamline the process or how do we make this easier for -- i mean, new businesses that want to enter this category or -- just streamlining the process to make it as fair and easy as possible. >> how do we amend the policy. this is a workshop so we'd have to bring it back so if we had ideas to have this issue of instead of 2 million for professional services that it be parallel to the city. and i should say, folks should know the city itself is conducting a community conversation on how to tweak and/or improve, if you will, the local business ordinance so hopefully we're in that conversation as well because it's happening right now.

>> vice chair rosales, any -- depending on direction from the commission, we'd consult working groups already established in the city, the former development agency had a working group to tackle these issues and it was very purposeful -- i think it was almost ten years ago since that was enacted that kept that level. because there's a micro, sbe, sba and we don't have these tiers, it's really focused on the small, not the micro or sba, which is much higher tiers. >> commissioner mondejar. no,

we haven't done marketing as yet. >> we as an office at this [inaudible]. i just feel like we need to get the word out there. i don't know what the market is, i don't know how large, you know, but certainly, i would like to see more individuals or -- i'm sorry, more businesses

apply and participate on b 35 and sort of spread our reach. >> we haven't determined anything as of yet because i haven't had a chance o to sit down with management and so forth but something george and i have discussed is refining our website to make it more transparent. it's somewhat of a one stop shop in a sense is that if you're interested in ocii projects, this is the only place you need to go. that's an idea. in my prior experiences we've also looked at having firms register themselves or at opportunities. so for us to constantly go out to them they'd tell us what they're interested in and when we have a business opportunity that matches with theirs we have a systematic way to generate email notices to these

firms, again, in an attempt to make it easier for them. those are some of the ideas currently, but haven't firmed anything up in that sense. >> yeah, great idea because i do think that any small business is busy working, usually. they don't have a marketing department, don't have a million people handshaking or going through all these things, but if there's a portal or avenue to register very precisely what you're interested and capabilities are, it's easier to make that connection because i think one of the complaints if you will among the local businesses in san francisco is that database of the city reflects over 1,000 certified locals in all these great areas, but not everyone -- i don't think the city's done and audit about how many of those on the certified list are actually getting any work because larger contractors tend to go to the same folks and

departments don't have that same relationship, to match up small company with small opportunity. i think because our dollar range seems to be much larger than the city's, but we have a much more individualized relationship with decision makers, i think this one-on-one matching idea could be very successful and lead the way again for the city. >> how often does [inaudible]. >> i'm sorry, what was that? >> how often does [inaudible] meet? >> we don't have a working group just yet. >> [inaudible]. >> there was a working group previously before an agency to tackle a number of issues. i know the commission has expressed interest in reinstituting that working group. i think both vice chair rosales and you expressed interest in that. the city has a working group

construction advisory working group to advise it on local hire and other matters and sometimes our office provides input to that working group. we are certainly share information with cmd and oew on what are ocii's programs versus the city's programs. >> [inaudible] and we used to meet every month or every other month [inaudible] both of us. >> yes. >> and i'd like to know about that, you know, if some next meeting comes i want to be informed. >> i think based on the commission's feedback and direction, we'd reinstitute the format of that group. one, looking at the marketing and data, looking at the parity for certification and there may be other agenda topics that

we'd focus the working group on. >> just a quick question on that, was that former group and the suggestion today, a subcommittee of the commission or was that a separate thing? >> it was some members of the commission as well as those in the construction field, as well as others. >> okay. >> i've been sitting in that group for the last 15 years. yeah. >> i mean, what -- committee of the commission. >> right. >> not exactly. it was certain members of the commission, but also opened up to the public and professional discipline. >> public is involved. >> the reason i ask the question is because [inaudible] we can name a subcommittee as a commission any time and if you're going to have a working group, but it's more who's on that. that was all. that was just a question. >> okay. i'd like to say a couple things. i heard a couple things about direction, one is reinstituting the working group, with the

same constitution, not necessarily the same people as before. looking into that. i've heard looking into bringing our definitions in parallel with the city's definitions around sbe. i would say in terms of actual direction, let's not only look into defining exactly what that means, just that one change from 2 to 2.5 million, are there other things? and the other is just make sure we check into what that means for dissolution law, do we have to go to the oversight board with that, does it have to go to the board of supervisors? i want a picture of that whole process before we go down that road. and the third is, i'm really sorry, but the portal idea was an idea or is that something that's happening? >> it's currently an idea. >> well now it's going to end up happening. [laughter] let's investigate the portal idea, at least to just get a

one pager on what it would include, sort of features and we can determine later whether or not we have a budget on that. if it's on paper and people have seen it, we can refer to it later. those are three action items i heard. >> [inaudible]. >> that was a portal idea, i think. i heard all of the above in the portal idea, which is why i think [inaudible] refine it and see if we can find budget, whatnot to do it. >> [inaudible] marketing outreach is all supportive of that portal idea. i just wanted clarification. >> correct. it was intended as a one stop shop in terms of this is the information for contracting opportunities. >> i'm talking about outreaching, sending something out, e blasting, emailing.

>> yes. a: >> and they all go to the portal. >> sending notices when there's a match >> in addition [inaudible] leveraging those resources and mr. lee indicated with other sister agencies that might be doing that so the folks in the community know of the particular opportunities coming through this office. >> yeah. i would like some physical form of that structure so that we can all look at the same thing and say this is what we agree on when we talk about a one stop and that can come in any form. that can be a one pager, a pop up book, any model. that would be great. just to have it on paper so we can think about what to do about it. >> commissioner mondejar, you mentioned what we have in the

sbe exhibit, attachment a, we simply named the construction firm. what we don't have, and certainly can provide that detail, an additional appendices, the actual firms, which i know the city's cmd division does. it will be a very extensive and thick book, but we certainly have the data and there is a way to provide the data in a summary fashion and for those who want to see which firms are getting this work on the professional services side that might be just -- it's more data, but i think it's useful data on a per project basis or we could sort it in some way. >> i would agree. and just respond on that, we've seen that now for most projects as we requested that so now we've seen those percentages by project. i might propose, and maybe you don't need that on paper, maybe

it could just be by projects, sort of like how you have this lovely table here by project summary. maybe just having another table by project for contractors. i think that's what you're saying. maybe making a way to not have full book form because we see a lot of the data per project. >> i think we can find a way to provide you that information without having it be -- >> okay. >> -- [inaudible]. >> all right. i'd like to ask a quick question on the work force. now, i know that our work is different and distinct from the city's, but did i understand the mayor's office of housing and community and development does not apply 14b to their -- >> well, most certainly. the mayor's office of housing and community development does apply 14b and certainly works

with the cmd staff, it's just simply not reported and it's not compiled in the report so we are we are working with cmd staff to get that data for their completed rehab and other capital projects similar to the ocii pipeline to understand how do we compare. there is just one anecdotal example which we've seen for the 206th street, or the former hugo hotel. we know our policies. due to availability of contracting and bid it's really a data driven approach that cmd and the city applies. the overall goal for the 206th street was 15%. >> okay. now, the other question is that on work force, on our work

force programs, our word local is in fact san francisco so there we are apples and apples with the city. >> that is correct, yes. >> even though the projects may be different because puc does something different than we may be doing or our developers may be doing, just in percentages, am i reading this right that we're doing generally better than the city on the work force program? >> it varies. some departments within the city does better and some of our projects certainly exceed the 50%, but overall, i believe what you're looking at is 36% for the city and 34% for us. >> and then within the bay view and hunters point geographic area projects there's a particular emphasis on bay view hunters point residents and the three zip codes encap sulated

because of the policy that was negotiated for the bay view hunters point area and shipyard projects. >> yeah. and on those projects it's currently running at 51%. >> i guess what i'm puzzled by and i don't expect you to answer it is if the city is currently at 30% under the local hire but could have gone to 35, but didn't because they're waiting for data, sounds like they have the data that would allow them to go to 35? am i misreading that? i know you can't answer. and then the only other question is that can we do our reporting similar to the city? i like the idea of seeing the demographics by ethnicity and gender and i wasn't exactly shocked, but to see the significant numbers of labor hours are going to latinos in san francisco on city projects. >> we have that data and we can

provide that data. >> and the way i saw the neighborhoods, both hunters point and the mission and the outer mission are the dominant zip codes, which reflect my understanding of basically where the workers would be, but i thought that was very interesting. >> i was just reminded too, for outreach purposes, we do require developers and contractors when they do have a solicitation or a contract opportunity, that they're also -- i wouldn't say required, but almost required to use the lbe database for outreach purposes. they use that database for specific outreach purposes when there's a contract opportunity for whatever disciplines that may be on their plate. >> excellent, thank you.

>> any other questions or comments? you have a couple of action items for staff? seeing none, this is not an action item. thank you very much for a very data filled and awesome presentation. excellent. >> section order of business is item 6, public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> next item please. >> next order of business is item 7. >> i do not have a report this week. i may have commentary later. >> next order of business is item 8. >> commissioners, as you see in your packets, there is a grand opening tool in walk throughs for bay view hills gardens, otherwise known as 1075 or 6600 third street. that is another project in the

bay view hunters point's area that has excellent numbers for minority participation on both fronts. that grand opening, i hope all the commissioners can make it and members of the public can make it. i think it's an incredible project, 72 units. it was funded primarily with sb 213 replacement dollars so that's another project that will come to fruition. the board of supervisors budget committee will be hearing our budget tomorrow at budget and finance. >> we're the very last item in terms of budgets that budget and finance would consider. we expect no issues so no recommended changes or issues. i think the incredible volume of work, the 1. $1.2 billion as mr. lee has

described were 27% of the mayor's plan to create 10,000 permanently affordable units for low income families so about a 1/3 of that every two years. we're on target as you can see. with that, that concludes my report. >> are you going to mention staff stuff? >> there are two staff departures, one staff member, [inaudible] law son, senior project managers for hunters point has decided to move on to los angeles after eight years working in the city, but specifically working on the hunters point's shipyard project. unrelated to that, mike, senior project manager for transbay has, after 11 years, has accepted and opportunity with kill roy, who's a local real

estate developer with about 5 million square feet in their portfolio based in la and we'd expect mike to do lots of work in the city and has much to be proud of in transbay and elsewhere. we will certainly miss their expertise. mike's last day is july 15. not ready to go yet. >> mike, come here for a second. i just want to ask you, what else we can do by you to ensure [inaudible]. . >> wow. you know we're on tv, right? >> i should say i've already accepted the -- very nice of

you to say, thank you. >> you will be sorely missed, as will wells lawson. excellent, excellent people, so good luck, mr. grosso. you may see me in the future. [laughter] >> you want to say something? should i? >> we'll make it quick. still on the executive director's report. yeah, the mayor's nominated me to the planning commission. i will be going to the rules committee on june 30 and i'm really honored to have been chosen and i hope that board of supervisors like me. >> you're going to rules committee.